When ‘I’ becomes ‘we’

Key Question Being Explored in This Insight:

Guy Huber and David Knights raises the research question of whether organizations can cultivate an ethic of responsibility to others and, if so, how this can be secured in everyday working practices?

View the page of: David Knights

View the page of: Guy Huber

Institution: Lancaster University

Explore more insights in:

Business Organisational Behaviour Professional

Media Literacy Toolkit

Faculti's Media Literacy Toolkit helps viewers critically engage with academic insights by analyzing the research context, identifying perspectives, and encouraging thoughtful evaluation.

Critical Questions to Consider ▼

What assumptions does the research make?
Are there alternative perspectives not explored?
What are the limitations of the research method?

Bias and Perspective Awareness ▼

This research comes from Lancaster University . Reflect on how the institution's academic focus and research partnerships may shape the questions being explored.

Further Reading ▼

Read the Study

Guy Huber and David Knights raises the research question of whether organizations can cultivate an ethic of responsibility to others and, if so, how this can be secured in everyday working practices?

Image courtesy of interviewee. February 8, 2024

Log-in or Sign-up to Faculti
Currently viewing this subject insight as a guest. You have insight(s) remaining for this month. Login to view 8000+ figures on the platform.

Generating Workspace...

Export as PDF

The speaker discusses their PhD research conducted at the Park Slope Food Co-op, focusing on humor, laughter, and the ethical dynamics within the organization. Through extensive engagement and reflection on members' experiences, the research revealed a distinctive culture centered on mutual responsibility and care for one another, contrasting with typical individualistic organizational behaviors.

The paper draws on philosophical frameworks from Michel Foucault and Emmanuel Levinas, examining how these theories align to illustrate the co-op's commitment to ethics and collective responsibility. The speaker notes that members prioritized communal well-being over individual self-interest, allowing for a democratic and diverse environment where ethical discussions were rooted in interpersonal relationships.

Through their findings, the research emphasizes the importance of cultivating ethical practices within organizations, highlighting the potential for cooperative structures to inspire transformative power dynamics. The co-op exemplifies how productive power can foster responsibility to others rather than a competitive, individualistic mindset.

The dialogue between the philosophies of Foucault and Levinas addresses the complexities of ethics and identity, proposing that personal attachments can impede ethical responsibilities. The researchers suggest that their study offers insights into the cooperative's unique framework, advocating for broader recognition of such models in organizational contexts that challenge conventional capitalist hierarchies. Overall, the paper contributes to the ongoing discourse on ethics in organizational life, highlighting the potential for collective responsibility through cooperative practices.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.245 --> 00:02.165
I was fortunate enough to carry out my PhD

00:02.725 --> 00:04.925
research in the Park Slope Food Co-op,

00:05.585 --> 00:07.565
and, my research was actually on humor

00:07.585 --> 00:09.525
and laughter, so I spent a lot

00:09.525 --> 00:11.845
of time working in the organization

00:12.895 --> 00:17.245
reflecting on people's use of humor, their laughter,

00:17.385 --> 00:18.805
but also more importantly,

00:18.865 --> 00:20.685
how people talked about their

00:20.685 --> 00:22.085
experiences of humor and laughter.

00:23.105 --> 00:27.605
But at the same time, I was, struck by, the kind

00:27.605 --> 00:28.925
of ethics of the organization

00:29.265 --> 00:30.485
and that came through in

00:30.485 --> 00:33.285
how people talked about themselves and others.

00:34.335 --> 00:36.115
And so that inspired this paper.

00:36.895 --> 00:39.515
And the paper was inspired along the lines of, I,

00:39.875 --> 00:43.195
I felt quite deeply affected by the experience I feel,

00:43.555 --> 00:46.315
I thought felt like I'd become a more responsible person,

00:47.315 --> 00:51.095
that I'd been reflecting more ethically on my

00:51.095 --> 00:53.135
interactions with others in the organization.

00:53.355 --> 00:55.615
And that was there in the talk of others.

00:56.715 --> 01:01.455
Um, and fortunately there's like a biweekly gazette,

01:01.505 --> 01:02.775
where members write in.

01:03.705 --> 01:06.765
And so there was all this other, sort of testimony

01:06.785 --> 01:10.965
of this in this newspaper, in members' own voices.

01:11.785 --> 01:15.205
And, you know, that kind of, dialogue

01:15.785 --> 01:20.405
was mo mostly centered on, people's ability

01:20.505 --> 01:24.005
to challenge, organizational practices

01:24.435 --> 01:26.085
that they deemed to be unethical.

01:26.625 --> 01:29.685
Uh, that the organization was very de democratic in,

01:30.045 --> 01:32.885
constitution, that everything needed to be voted for

01:33.305 --> 01:35.125
or against by the membership themselves.

01:35.985 --> 01:40.085
Um, and people express themselves in these, interviews

01:40.105 --> 01:42.765
and, and discourses as,

01:44.055 --> 01:48.835
as not feeling that they should be, constrained

01:48.835 --> 01:52.155
or cured by, norms

01:52.415 --> 01:56.515
and, rules that everything should be up for discussion

01:56.515 --> 01:58.195
and that people should be able to enact,

01:58.855 --> 02:00.355
who they wanted to be.

02:00.455 --> 02:02.595
So there was a lot written about the importance

02:02.595 --> 02:04.275
of diversity and democracy.

02:05.175 --> 02:08.875
And so what we, what we dec decided was that this was a,

02:09.065 --> 02:11.075
this was a institution in which

02:12.015 --> 02:16.515
people were enacting care for themselves, for other people.

02:17.455 --> 02:20.435
And, one of the main, main ways we, we saw that was

02:20.745 --> 02:23.635
that people didn't tend to talk simply about themselves.

02:23.665 --> 02:25.275
They used to, they would often talk about

02:25.275 --> 02:26.555
themselves in relation to others.

02:27.375 --> 02:31.795
And, and we had some quotes that centered on,

02:32.175 --> 02:35.035
the how we can move this conversation from I to we.

02:35.295 --> 02:37.075
And so we thought that that was a very important

02:37.075 --> 02:38.155
part of that discussion.

02:38.665 --> 02:40.755
This was an organization which

02:41.625 --> 02:44.835
very different from other organizations where

02:47.065 --> 02:50.435
individuals are more concerned about themselves

02:50.905 --> 02:51.995
than they are about others.

02:52.855 --> 02:56.945
And here there seemed to be basic ethics

02:57.375 --> 03:00.845
that was, underlying the way in which

03:01.545 --> 03:03.205
the organization functioned.

03:04.225 --> 03:06.285
And this was very unusual, and

03:06.285 --> 03:09.365
therefore we felt it was worthy of,

03:10.585 --> 03:15.205
of some kind of, academic reportage drawing on

03:16.005 --> 03:20.545
Michelle Fako, the French philosopher,

03:21.885 --> 03:25.625
but also combining this with, with some discussion

03:26.365 --> 03:28.185
of Emmanuel Lebanons.

03:28.885 --> 03:32.305
And many people would say that it's impossible

03:32.405 --> 03:36.065
to render those two theorists compatible,

03:37.925 --> 03:42.845
partly because KO's concern,

03:43.355 --> 03:48.135
KO's concern was with the existing world

03:48.235 --> 03:52.175
as it is, and how we can transform it

03:52.995 --> 03:56.805
through what he would call productive power

03:58.085 --> 04:02.385
and productive power of, of people to, to relate

04:02.385 --> 04:04.625
to each other in ethical ways.

04:04.855 --> 04:09.505
Whereas Levis believed that ethics was prior

04:09.525 --> 04:13.695
to living, it existed prior to,

04:14.475 --> 04:16.935
our being as active in the world.

04:18.105 --> 04:21.365
Uh, so the, so his concern was

04:21.365 --> 04:25.115
that there is a responsibility that is

04:25.645 --> 04:30.435
built into our very being prior to living in the world,

04:30.615 --> 04:32.835
in other words, prior to existence.

04:33.415 --> 04:36.115
So it, it was a kind of, you could argue

04:36.305 --> 04:40.075
that it is the opposite of existentialism, existentialism

04:40.615 --> 04:44.165
argues that we, we, we acquire in essence,

04:44.165 --> 04:47.765
through our existence, whereas,

04:48.475 --> 04:51.525
Levinas is arguing, but we have the essence prior

04:51.585 --> 04:52.805
to our existence.

04:53.345 --> 04:57.405
Um, we have to live out the, the essence of responsibility,

04:57.795 --> 04:59.645
basically responsibility to others.

05:00.065 --> 05:04.085
And we saw that this, this seemed to be compatible

05:04.235 --> 05:05.925
with our empirical research.

05:06.985 --> 05:09.685
Um, but the

05:11.005 --> 05:15.405
possible problem is that whereas Fko is arguing

05:15.715 --> 05:19.605
that, this kind of some asymmetry,

05:20.315 --> 05:23.725
asymmetry in, the world, you know, that

05:24.795 --> 05:28.735
people do fall back on their own concerns

05:28.755 --> 05:29.935
and their own interests

05:30.515 --> 05:33.455
and their own individualism, if you like.

05:34.455 --> 05:37.955
And what he was feeling was

05:37.955 --> 05:40.035
that we have to work on this.

05:41.505 --> 05:44.725
Uh, we have to be guilt, be, become ethical

05:44.835 --> 05:46.045
through our practices,

05:46.785 --> 05:50.245
and we have to reflect on the nature of ourselves.

05:51.855 --> 05:56.455
So self is, is a reflexive process

05:57.265 --> 05:59.835
whereby we come to understand what we are

06:00.025 --> 06:02.115
through our relationships with others.

06:03.985 --> 06:08.965
And so he believed that we could reach a stage where

06:09.715 --> 06:14.075
organizations would reflect this deep

06:14.965 --> 06:19.175
understanding of our dependence, interdependence

06:19.765 --> 06:21.765
upon each other, and,

06:21.985 --> 06:26.435
and that we would be able then to,

06:27.315 --> 06:29.995
practice ethics in our everyday lives,

06:30.375 --> 06:32.195
the practical practice of ethics.

06:33.265 --> 06:37.645
Um, and of course, the end result is

06:37.715 --> 06:42.365
that it will be the same as Lebanon's argument that we have

06:42.365 --> 06:43.605
to be responsible to the other.

06:44.605 --> 06:46.985
And the other is, is everything to us.

06:47.925 --> 06:52.335
Um, and the one, the one area

06:52.335 --> 06:57.095
where they do coincide is when,

06:57.805 --> 07:02.005
Levinas brings in another other,

07:02.925 --> 07:06.305
in other words, when there is more than there are more than

07:06.325 --> 07:09.265
two, and it's not just a reciprocal relationship,

07:10.435 --> 07:14.805
then he, he argues that we have to rely on rules

07:14.985 --> 07:18.485
and regulations that we have created through

07:19.065 --> 07:23.745
our ethical relationships with each other, so that we are

07:24.855 --> 07:27.785
able to comply without

07:28.865 --> 07:32.345
threatening the third person in order to be responsible

07:32.345 --> 07:36.305
to the first person or the second person, as it were in the,

07:36.365 --> 07:38.345
in the tripartite relationship.

07:39.805 --> 07:41.105
So we, the rules

07:41.165 --> 07:45.215
and regulations intervene between the,

07:45.915 --> 07:47.855
the individuals that you are responsible to.

07:49.365 --> 07:52.265
And in, in that sense, we feel that the,

07:52.315 --> 07:53.665
there is compatibility

07:54.095 --> 07:58.905
because FCO was also very cantet in his beliefs,

07:59.605 --> 08:03.505
regarding ethics and, and responsibility

08:04.405 --> 08:07.025
In this paper we're, we're, we're some of,

08:07.085 --> 08:09.985
if not the first to try to,

08:10.855 --> 08:13.145
take on this difficult conversation between

08:13.145 --> 08:14.265
through evidence.

08:14.605 --> 08:17.105
So we think one of the, a really important aspects

08:17.105 --> 08:21.305
of the paper is this, is this conversation between the two.

08:22.085 --> 08:25.985
Um, and I, I suppose it speaks to, to our conclusions.

08:26.465 --> 08:28.425
I mean, this is a unique case.

08:29.285 --> 08:32.585
Um, there are no other organizations quite like the parks

08:32.585 --> 08:37.145
like corp, but there is evidence that, that

08:37.535 --> 08:41.465
through productive power, which is power with other people,

08:42.645 --> 08:45.265
you can produce these kind of practices in common.

08:46.255 --> 08:49.315
And, so we think that's a really important finding,

08:49.975 --> 08:54.075
not least because Levi's work is being recognized as being

08:54.215 --> 08:57.725
so important when it, when we talk about ethics in relation

08:57.745 --> 08:58.845
to organizations,

08:59.465 --> 09:03.125
or as David said, the third, this, this relation of our,

09:03.305 --> 09:04.645
our relation to other others.

09:05.505 --> 09:07.445
So, we think that's important,

09:08.545 --> 09:10.845
but how do we, would it, how do we ground it?

09:11.425 --> 09:15.365
So leave as talks about, rules,

09:15.675 --> 09:16.805
laws, et cetera.

09:17.505 --> 09:19.045
And what we found,

09:19.095 --> 09:21.845
which we think is important in in parts like C**k,

09:22.265 --> 09:23.885
is these were ethical principles.

09:24.465 --> 09:27.365
Um, and these were, as we say in the beginning of the paper,

09:27.945 --> 09:30.925
limited hierarch control, democracy,

09:32.285 --> 09:35.125
collaborations expressed through cooperation,

09:35.125 --> 09:37.365
responsibility to each other

09:37.985 --> 09:42.405
and solidarity, solidarity that expresses the right

09:42.425 --> 09:43.685
of people to be different.

09:44.595 --> 09:48.135
Uh, not a solidarity that's, that's, that could, could,

09:48.135 --> 09:52.335
that would necessarily result in,

09:52.335 --> 09:54.215
people being othered, which,

09:54.215 --> 09:55.535
which would go against both

09:55.535 --> 09:57.055
philosophers, but in in particular.

09:58.595 --> 10:00.735
So we, this is a unique case study, but,

10:01.315 --> 10:04.575
but we do show that it is, that it is practical

10:04.915 --> 10:07.255
and that it can, it can be done in practice.

10:07.255 --> 10:09.135
And I think that that's, that's really important.

10:09.755 --> 10:13.855
The park slope, is an institution

10:14.815 --> 10:17.355
in the sense that it's been in, it's been in the, the,

10:17.375 --> 10:19.515
the neighborhood for, for some years,

10:20.015 --> 10:23.475
but also, has much wider appeal than that.

10:23.475 --> 10:27.555
And so it's famous within, New York itself,

10:27.575 --> 10:29.235
is much talked about in the media.

10:30.055 --> 10:33.235
Uh, it has been viewed as a model for other cooperatives.

10:34.115 --> 10:37.095
Um, and one reason for that is that,

10:37.675 --> 10:40.655
it has really stick stuck to these principles

10:41.475 --> 10:45.525
that these aren't just said, they are put into practice,

10:45.695 --> 10:48.525
which is something very important when it comes to Levi us.

10:49.225 --> 10:53.125
Um, and what my experience was, I went

10:53.125 --> 10:57.765
to work in this really strange, quiet, troubling,

10:58.385 --> 11:02.165
universe, if you like, where you are interacting

11:02.165 --> 11:03.525
with lots of members.

11:03.875 --> 11:05.685
They're all co-owners.

11:06.265 --> 11:11.205
Um, there's no hierarchy apart as, apart from,

11:11.205 --> 11:13.085
there are some full-time members of staff,

11:14.105 --> 11:16.165
but who I interviewed, I interviewed nearly all

11:16.165 --> 11:17.325
of the full-time members of staff,

11:17.325 --> 11:19.445
including the general coordinators who, who,

11:19.625 --> 11:23.115
who don't see themselves as being above,

11:23.175 --> 11:26.235
or in charge of, they very much see themselves

11:26.295 --> 11:28.075
as still being a peer-to-peer relationship.

11:29.065 --> 11:31.605
And so people are engaged in all kinds

11:31.605 --> 11:32.805
of behaviors and practices.

11:33.425 --> 11:35.045
Uh, people challenge you on things.

11:35.705 --> 11:39.645
Um, I was, once, I once, got on the intercom

11:39.645 --> 11:44.485
and asked if you have, any, any

11:44.485 --> 11:47.685
of this product and was admonished by a member nearby,

11:47.685 --> 11:49.805
because it's not, it's not you, it's we.

11:50.505 --> 11:53.325
Um, and so it's, it's just,

11:53.505 --> 11:56.285
it feels very strange at the same time.

11:56.305 --> 11:58.405
It is welcoming. And,

12:00.105 --> 12:04.045
and the longer I was there, the more attuned I became to

12:04.575 --> 12:07.085
other members and these sort of principals

12:07.465 --> 12:09.805
and the general day-to-day running of the store.

12:10.985 --> 12:15.725
And, you know, there is this kind of disciplinary pressure.

12:16.275 --> 12:18.925
It's not, I didn't find it to be,

12:19.645 --> 12:20.725
I wasn't being dominated.

12:21.285 --> 12:23.485
I didn't find it particularly problematic,

12:23.985 --> 12:26.445
but I was very aware that, you know, whenever you're there,

12:26.685 --> 12:28.245
whenever you're working, even when you're shopping,

12:28.265 --> 12:30.165
you're surrounded by other members.

12:31.545 --> 12:35.325
And if you are not practicing these principles,

12:35.665 --> 12:37.085
if you're not, if you're not, if

12:37.085 --> 12:40.165
what you're doing is not in the spirit of cooperation,

12:40.185 --> 12:43.485
and so forth, that you are kind of act acting

12:43.515 --> 12:44.725
outside of those norms.

12:45.065 --> 12:47.685
And so there is this, this disciplinary pressure,

12:47.685 --> 12:52.005
if you like, and yet I found it to be very positive thing

12:52.005 --> 12:55.405
because it, because it made me reflect ethically

12:55.585 --> 12:56.605
on my own practices.

12:57.345 --> 13:01.405
And I felt like I became a more ethical person who was

13:02.185 --> 13:03.725
trying to take care of myself,

13:03.745 --> 13:06.365
but in doing that, taking care of other people.

13:07.025 --> 13:09.765
So I dunno if that's too, I dunno if

13:09.765 --> 13:11.925
that's too abstract, really, but that,

13:12.025 --> 13:14.205
but that is, that'd be my account.

13:14.665 --> 13:18.125
And it was, and it was inspired also by the facts.

13:18.145 --> 13:20.165
And this is part of taking care of yourself,

13:20.665 --> 13:21.965
the kind of reading that I was doing.

13:22.505 --> 13:25.965
So I hadn't, I had no knowledge of Levi acid this time,

13:26.025 --> 13:27.725
but I had been reading a lot of fco

13:28.905 --> 13:31.685
and so my study was on power and identity,

13:32.945 --> 13:35.045
but there seemed to be something really productive

13:35.045 --> 13:37.405
and positive about the kind of,

13:37.405 --> 13:41.205
power relations within the co-op that, that fascinated me.

13:42.025 --> 13:45.725
And as David said, when we look back through,

13:46.745 --> 13:49.365
we were both inspired by the idea that there,

13:49.435 --> 13:52.445
that there was something here that not only related to

13:52.445 --> 13:55.805
what f through Co had wr written about power being positive

13:56.225 --> 14:01.045
and productive, but also in terms of Levi's idea of the face

14:01.045 --> 14:04.445
of the other and put in the other before oneself.

14:04.905 --> 14:07.365
So we, we thought it was really important in both of us.

14:08.105 --> 14:10.685
So we'd already met and we'd already discussed our interest

14:10.705 --> 14:11.725
in both philosophers.

14:12.785 --> 14:17.645
Um, and then, David came in, read what I'd started

14:17.645 --> 14:20.885
to write, look through the data with me, and,

14:21.905 --> 14:24.405
and was in, and was inspired by this idea

14:24.405 --> 14:27.045
that maybe we could interrogate this,

14:27.505 --> 14:30.005
what's been going on in the co-op, in terms

14:30.005 --> 14:32.045
of both philosophers and,

14:32.105 --> 14:34.845
and really drove that I was much more tentative

14:34.845 --> 14:35.845
because of the,

14:35.915 --> 14:38.885
because of the problems, which are more mainly

14:38.945 --> 14:41.205
around ontology and epistemology.

14:41.305 --> 14:44.045
But, but that made me a little bit shyer.

14:44.705 --> 14:47.845
Um, and yet David felt it was something

14:47.845 --> 14:49.645
that we could take on and would be worthwhile.

14:49.665 --> 14:51.365
And, and so I'm very grateful

14:52.105 --> 14:54.005
for his inspiration in that regard. Yeah,

14:54.585 --> 14:58.645
The problem in, in most organizations is, is individualism

14:59.575 --> 15:03.565
would argue, and of course it's individualism is something

15:03.565 --> 15:07.435
that has been promoted by,

15:08.205 --> 15:13.025
capitalist form of, of economic organization,

15:14.815 --> 15:17.515
because it, the market relies on

15:17.745 --> 15:19.635
individuals making choices.

15:21.075 --> 15:23.325
And, and,

15:23.505 --> 15:27.005
and then the eventual result is that, that they're,

15:27.005 --> 15:30.085
they're in competition with one another individuals

15:30.145 --> 15:32.845
and are in competition with one another for economic

15:33.525 --> 15:37.315
material goods, but also symbolic goods,

15:37.575 --> 15:38.875
in other words, identity.

15:40.015 --> 15:43.705
Um, and individuals are constantly

15:44.265 --> 15:47.305
pursuing their identities in organizations.

15:47.645 --> 15:49.625
And that's what career is all about.

15:50.365 --> 15:54.345
Uh, people are seeking to climb up the hierarchy

15:54.525 --> 15:58.105
and become more significant, more important

15:58.805 --> 16:02.665
and responsibility to the other is, is kind

16:02.665 --> 16:04.145
of lost in all that process.

16:04.725 --> 16:09.605
Um, 'cause people are just so concerned about themselves

16:10.235 --> 16:13.845
that they can never really be responsible to the other.

16:14.355 --> 16:16.485
When we look at, the notion of power

16:17.315 --> 16:20.895
or the concept of power convention, of the concept of power

16:21.635 --> 16:24.765
is treated as a person

16:26.155 --> 16:30.725
possessing power over another, another person.

16:31.765 --> 16:35.255
It's, it's a property that people seek to acquire.

16:36.955 --> 16:41.925
And yet in terms power

16:43.075 --> 16:44.245
need be like

16:44.245 --> 16:48.485
that power can be productive rather than a repressive force

16:49.385 --> 16:53.785
as it is if you are, only seeking power

16:54.365 --> 16:57.345
to rule others to, to kind of control others.

16:58.805 --> 17:03.705
Um, but for fuco power can be a very productive,

17:04.165 --> 17:07.345
and it, and it, and it's not a possession of individuals,

17:08.055 --> 17:10.425
it's a property of, of social relations.

17:11.245 --> 17:15.425
And that's so important in terms of this cooperative,

17:16.165 --> 17:17.345
organization

17:18.015 --> 17:21.915
because they clearly were the,

17:21.915 --> 17:26.515
the power in sari that existed was a property

17:26.535 --> 17:30.195
of the relations, not a property of the individuals.

17:31.575 --> 17:36.235
Um, and therefore it was possible for responsibility

17:36.415 --> 17:40.875
to be as an essential element of, of their activities.

17:41.735 --> 17:42.985
When you look at our discussions

17:43.045 --> 17:47.225
and conclusion, there's a fascinating dynamic there,

17:47.475 --> 17:50.405
which was between ourselves and our reviewers.

17:51.505 --> 17:55.285
So part of what we wrote in our discussion was inspired by

17:55.315 --> 17:57.965
what our reviewers had commented on because,

17:58.385 --> 18:01.325
and this is, I would say largely down to, to David,

18:01.945 --> 18:05.085
who in his responses is very philosophical.

18:05.225 --> 18:08.765
And that inspired very philosophical replies

18:08.865 --> 18:12.485
by extremely experienced and, knowledgeable reviewers.

18:13.065 --> 18:16.285
And so with what we see in our discussion in this paper,

18:16.405 --> 18:18.725
I think is you do see the same kind

18:18.725 --> 18:20.805
of dynamics playing out within the review process,

18:20.815 --> 18:21.925
which is quite fascinating.

18:22.315 --> 18:24.565
What what the are discourse

18:26.365 --> 18:27.755
eventually turned into.

18:27.775 --> 18:28.955
It wasn't like that at the beginning,

18:29.015 --> 18:33.795
but through the review process was, was a dialogue,

18:34.215 --> 18:36.155
was a conversation, was a debate.

18:36.255 --> 18:40.595
And so we, we can't claim to have, closed the circle.

18:41.135 --> 18:44.475
Uh, in fact, there are still all kinds of tensions

18:45.145 --> 18:49.235
that are there in our data, in our findings, that speak

18:49.255 --> 18:53.195
to the problem of, care for the other, both from

18:53.795 --> 18:55.795
perspective and Levis perspective,

18:56.335 --> 18:58.155
and also speaks to some tensions

18:58.665 --> 19:01.035
between the two philosophers, especially when it comes

19:01.035 --> 19:02.755
to, a PEs.

19:03.975 --> 19:06.555
So no, I think in answer to that question,

19:07.695 --> 19:09.535
I think it is a kind of open text.

19:09.955 --> 19:12.055
And that's one reason why we were asked

19:12.055 --> 19:14.055
to see if we could draw some sort of conclusion

19:14.705 --> 19:18.415
about alternative institutions such as corporations

19:18.415 --> 19:21.295
and what might, what might be the implications

19:21.475 --> 19:23.135
for other organizations.

19:24.335 --> 19:27.695
I think all this revolves around the notion of identity

19:28.555 --> 19:31.135
and an attachment to one's identity.

19:31.325 --> 19:33.295
That this is the, this is

19:33.295 --> 19:35.655
what we say is the major constraint

19:36.685 --> 19:38.655
upon responsibility to others.

19:39.825 --> 19:44.285
Um, and in organizations working like the cooperative

19:45.205 --> 19:46.685
organization we studied

19:47.185 --> 19:49.645
or the, guy studied in particular.

19:50.895 --> 19:55.705
Um, and it is interesting that it wasn't,

19:55.885 --> 19:58.705
it wasn't until after we'd written the paper, I think that

19:59.425 --> 20:03.585
I discovered that Fuko had argued in, in a paper on madness,

20:04.245 --> 20:09.105
history of madness, he'd argued

20:09.105 --> 20:12.975
that, an attachment to identity

20:13.755 --> 20:16.095
is the, the very first sign of madness.

20:16.875 --> 20:21.155
And he did use the word madness as opposed to,

20:21.735 --> 20:23.795
health, mental health condition,

20:23.925 --> 20:25.355
which we would use today.

20:26.655 --> 20:29.875
Uh, and I mean, and, and,

20:29.975 --> 20:33.675
and it's that, that prevents us being ethical

20:34.425 --> 20:38.395
because we are so attached to our identity that we cannot

20:39.175 --> 20:42.375
really escape this,

20:42.445 --> 20:44.415
this preoccupation with ourselves.

20:45.505 --> 20:50.045
And, and you, you, you notice it in everyday conversations.

20:50.945 --> 20:54.925
You talk to people and they talk about themselves primarily.

20:56.305 --> 21:01.245
Uh, and, and a kind of openness to the other is, is, is, is,

21:01.305 --> 21:06.285
is is related to their interest in themselves,

21:06.585 --> 21:08.485
you know, their preoccupation with themselves.

21:09.995 --> 21:14.615
Um, so I think, I think we did achieve some kind of,

21:15.315 --> 21:18.495
complementarity between the two philosophers,

21:19.365 --> 21:23.935
even though it's still an open and open book.

21:24.195 --> 21:27.575
You know, we cannot, we cannot say we've,

21:27.625 --> 21:30.615
we've got the final word on, on FCO and on Lebanon,

21:30.875 --> 21:34.095
and there are lots of, ways in which you would,

21:34.555 --> 21:38.255
you would want to say that they, they're not compatible.

21:39.085 --> 21:40.815
Lots of ways. They're not compatible.

21:41.875 --> 21:45.575
But I think in terms of contributing to this study

21:45.875 --> 21:48.215
of the co, the cooperative,

21:49.375 --> 21:52.495
I think we found some compatibility between the two.

Humor and Ethics in Cooperative Organizations

00:00:00 - I was fortunate enough to carry out my PhD research in the Park Slope Food Co-op, and, my research was actually on humor and laughter, so I spent a lot of time working in the organization reflecting on people's use of humor, their laughter, but also more importantly, how people talked about their experiences of humor and laughter. But at the same time, I was, struck by, the kind of ethics of the organization and that came through in
00:00:34 - And so that inspired this paper. And the paper was inspired along the lines of, I, I felt quite deeply affected by the experience I feel, I thought felt like I'd become a more responsible person, that I'd been reflecting more ethically on my interactions with others in the organization. And that was there in the talk of others. and fortunately there's like a biweekly gazette,
00:01:03 - And so there was all this other, sort of testimony of this in this newspaper, in members' own voices. And, you know, that kind of, dialogue was mo mostly centered on, people's ability to challenge, organizational practices that they deemed to be unethical. that the organization was very de democratic in, constitution, that everything needed to be voted for
00:01:35 - and people express themselves in these, interviews and, and discourses as, as not feeling that they should be, constrained or cured by, norms and, rules that everything should be up for discussion and that people should be able to enact, who they wanted to be. So there was a lot written about the importance of diversity and democracy.
00:02:09 - this was a institution in which people were enacting care for themselves, for other people. And, one of the main, main ways we, we saw that was that people didn't tend to talk simply about themselves. They used to, they would often talk about themselves in relation to others. And, and we had some quotes that centered on, the how we can move this conversation from I to we.
00:02:37 - part of that discussion. This was an organization which very different from other organizations where individuals are more concerned about themselves than they are about others. And here there seemed to be basic ethics that was, underlying the way in which the organization functioned. And this was very unusual, and

Ethics and Responsibility in Philosophical Perspectives

00:03:10 - of some kind of, academic reportage drawing on Michelle Fako, the French philosopher, but also combining this with, with some discussion of Emmanuel Lebanons. And many people would say that it's impossible to render those two theorists compatible,
00:03:43 - KO's concern was with the existing world as it is, and how we can transform it through what he would call productive power and productive power of, of people to, to relate to each other in ethical ways. Whereas Levis believed that ethics was prior
00:04:14 - our being as active in the world. so the, so his concern was that there is a responsibility that is built into our very being prior to living in the world, in other words, prior to existence. So it, it was a kind of, you could argue that it is the opposite of existentialism, existentialism
00:04:44 - through our existence, whereas, Levinas is arguing, but we have the essence prior to our existence. we have to live out the, the essence of responsibility, basically responsibility to others. And we saw that this, this seemed to be compatible with our empirical research. but the
00:05:15 - that, this kind of some asymmetry, asymmetry in, the world, you know, that people do fall back on their own concerns and their own interests and their own individualism, if you like. And what he was feeling was that we have to work on this.
00:05:44 - through our practices, and we have to reflect on the nature of ourselves. So self is, is a reflexive process whereby we come to understand what we are through our relationships with others. And so he believed that we could reach a stage where organizations would reflect this deep

Ethics in Relation: Responsibility to Others

00:06:19 - upon each other, and, and that we would be able then to, practice ethics in our everyday lives, the practical practice of ethics. and of course, the end result is that it will be the same as Lebanon's argument that we have to be responsible to the other. And the other is, is everything to us.
00:06:52 - where they do coincide is when, Levinas brings in another other, in other words, when there is more than there are more than two, and it's not just a reciprocal relationship, then he, he argues that we have to rely on rules and regulations that we have created through
00:07:24 - able to comply without threatening the third person in order to be responsible to the first person or the second person, as it were in the, in the tripartite relationship. So we, the rules and regulations intervene between the, the individuals that you are responsible to.
00:07:52 - there is compatibility because FCO was also very cantet in his beliefs, regarding ethics and, and responsibility In this paper we're, we're, we're some of, if not the first to try to, take on this difficult conversation between through evidence. So we think one of the, a really important aspects of the paper is this, is this conversation between the two.
00:08:26 - I mean, this is a unique case. there are no other organizations quite like the parks like corp, but there is evidence that, that through productive power, which is power with other people, you can produce these kind of practices in common. And, so we think that's a really important finding, not least because Levi's work is being recognized as being
00:08:57 - to organizations, or as David said, the third, this, this relation of our, our relation to other others. So, we think that's important, but how do we, would it, how do we ground it? So leave as talks about, rules, laws, et cetera. And what we found, which we think is important in in parts like C**k, is these were ethical principles.

Cooperative Ethics and Community Responsibility

00:09:27 - limited hierarch control, democracy, collaborations expressed through cooperation, responsibility to each other and solidarity, solidarity that expresses the right of people to be different. not a solidarity that's, that's, that could, could, that would necessarily result in, people being othered, which, which would go against both
00:09:58 - So we, this is a unique case study, but, but we do show that it is, that it is practical and that it can, it can be done in practice. And I think that that's, that's really important. The park slope, is an institution in the sense that it's been in, it's been in the, the, the neighborhood for, for some years, but also, has much wider appeal than that. And so it's famous within, New York itself,
00:10:30 - it has been viewed as a model for other cooperatives. and one reason for that is that, it has really stick stuck to these principles that these aren't just said, they are put into practice, which is something very important when it comes to Levi us. and what my experience was, I went to work in this really strange, quiet, troubling,
00:11:02 - with lots of members. They're all co-owners. there's no hierarchy apart as, apart from, there are some full-time members of staff, but who I interviewed, I interviewed nearly all of the full-time members of staff, including the general coordinators who, who, who don't see themselves as being above, or in charge of, they very much see themselves as still being a peer-to-peer relationship.
00:11:31 - of behaviors and practices. people challenge you on things. I was, once, I once, got on the intercom and asked if you have, any, any of this product and was admonished by a member nearby, because it's not, it's not you, it's we. and so it's, it's just, it feels very strange at the same time. It is welcoming. And,
00:12:04 - other members and these sort of principals and the general day-to-day running of the store. And, you know, there is this kind of disciplinary pressure. It's not, I didn't find it to be, I wasn't being dominated. I didn't find it particularly problematic, but I was very aware that, you know, whenever you're there, whenever you're working, even when you're shopping, you're surrounded by other members.

Ethics and Cooperation in Organizational Practices

00:12:35 - if you're not, if you're not, if what you're doing is not in the spirit of cooperation, and so forth, that you are kind of act acting outside of those norms. And so there is this, this disciplinary pressure, if you like, and yet I found it to be very positive thing because it, because it made me reflect ethically on my own practices. And I felt like I became a more ethical person who was
00:13:03 - but in doing that, taking care of other people. So I dunno if that's too, I dunno if that's too abstract, really, but that, but that is, that'd be my account. And it was, and it was inspired also by the facts. And this is part of taking care of yourself, the kind of reading that I was doing. So I hadn't, I had no knowledge of Levi acid this time, but I had been reading a lot of fco and so my study was on power and identity,
00:13:35 - and positive about the kind of, power relations within the co-op that, that fascinated me. And as David said, when we look back through, we were both inspired by the idea that there, that there was something here that not only related to what f through Co had wr written about power being positive and productive, but also in terms of Levi's idea of the face of the other and put in the other before oneself.
00:14:08 - So we'd already met and we'd already discussed our interest in both philosophers. and then, David came in, read what I'd started to write, look through the data with me, and, and was in, and was inspired by this idea that maybe we could interrogate this, what's been going on in the co-op, in terms of both philosophers and, and really drove that I was much more tentative because of the,
00:14:38 - around ontology and epistemology. But, but that made me a little bit shyer. and yet David felt it was something that we could take on and would be worthwhile. And, and so I'm very grateful for his inspiration in that regard. Yeah, The problem in, in most organizations is, is individualism would argue, and of course it's individualism is something that has been promoted by,
00:15:14 - because it, the market relies on individuals making choices. And, and, and then the eventual result is that, that they're, they're in competition with one another individuals and are in competition with one another for economic material goods, but also symbolic goods, in other words, identity.

Identity Pursuit and Power Dynamics in Organizations

00:15:44 - pursuing their identities in organizations. And that's what career is all about. people are seeking to climb up the hierarchy and become more significant, more important and responsibility to the other is, is kind of lost in all that process. 'cause people are just so concerned about themselves
00:16:14 - When we look at, the notion of power or the concept of power convention, of the concept of power is treated as a person possessing power over another, another person. It's, it's a property that people seek to acquire. And yet in terms power
00:16:44 - that power can be productive rather than a repressive force as it is if you are, only seeking power to rule others to, to kind of control others. but for fuco power can be a very productive, and it, and it, and it's not a possession of individuals, it's a property of, of social relations. And that's so important in terms of this cooperative,
00:17:18 - because they clearly were the, the power in sari that existed was a property of the relations, not a property of the individuals. and therefore it was possible for responsibility to be as an essential element of, of their activities. When you look at our discussions and conclusion, there's a fascinating dynamic there,
00:17:51 - So part of what we wrote in our discussion was inspired by what our reviewers had commented on because, and this is, I would say largely down to, to David, who in his responses is very philosophical. And that inspired very philosophical replies by extremely experienced and, knowledgeable reviewers. And so with what we see in our discussion in this paper, I think is you do see the same kind
00:18:20 - which is quite fascinating. What what the are discourse eventually turned into. It wasn't like that at the beginning, but through the review process was, was a dialogue, was a conversation, was a debate. And so we, we can't claim to have, closed the circle. in fact, there are still all kinds of tensions that are there in our data, in our findings, that speak

Identity's Impact on Responsibility and Ethics

00:18:53 - perspective and Levis perspective, and also speaks to some tensions between the two philosophers, especially when it comes to, a PEs. So no, I think in answer to that question, I think it is a kind of open text. And that's one reason why we were asked to see if we could draw some sort of conclusion about alternative institutions such as corporations and what might, what might be the implications
00:19:24 - I think all this revolves around the notion of identity and an attachment to one's identity. That this is the, this is what we say is the major constraint upon responsibility to others. and in organizations working like the cooperative organization we studied or the, guy studied in particular. and it is interesting that it wasn't,
00:19:59 - I discovered that Fuko had argued in, in a paper on madness, history of madness, he'd argued that, an attachment to identity is the, the very first sign of madness. And he did use the word madness as opposed to, health, mental health condition, which we would use today.
00:20:29 - and it's that, that prevents us being ethical because we are so attached to our identity that we cannot really escape this, this preoccupation with ourselves. And, and you, you, you notice it in everyday conversations. You talk to people and they talk about themselves primarily. and, and a kind of openness to the other is, is, is, is,
00:21:06 - you know, their preoccupation with themselves. so I think, I think we did achieve some kind of, complementarity between the two philosophers, even though it's still an open and open book. You know, we cannot, we cannot say we've, we've got the final word on, on FCO and on Lebanon, and there are lots of, ways in which you would,
00:21:49 - Lots of ways. They're not compatible. But I think in terms of contributing to this study of the co, the cooperative, I think we found some compatibility between the two.

Faculti AI can make mistakes

Research

Policy

Analysis

Data

Originals

Explainers

Podcasts

Faculti

New on Faculti

Idea Explorer

Definition

News Context

Critical Questions and Answers

Research Summaries

When ‘I’ becomes ‘we’

Media Literacy Toolkit

Critical Questions to Consider ▼

Bias and Perspective Awareness ▼

Further Reading ▼